Anatole Pang

Anatole Pang is a former Conservative council candidate for Twickenham, and is resident in Beijing where he has worked for four years. He is currently an active member of Conservatives Abroad there.

In May of this year, Oliver Letwin came to Beijing on a crypto-ministerial visit during a period of frosty relations following the most recent Dalai Lama incident.

Amongst the items Mr Letwin had in his bag marked “leverage” was a reform of the visa system which has subsequently not been given as much attention as it might perhaps warrant, allowing in particular business visitors easier access to Britain going forward – a key element in encouraging Chinese investment. This gesture was noteworthy because it could be interpreted as the beginnings of something I have been calling for on this blog for some time – a China policy.

Let us not beat about the bush: whether we like it or not, China is not just an emerging power but rather one which in many ways has already arrived. It is, in this day in age, as relevant for us to have a China policy as it is a Middle East or Russia policy.

Anatole Pang is a former Conservative council candidate for Twickenham, and is resident in Beijing where he has worked for four years. He is currently an active member of Conservatives Abroad there.

In my last piece on this site, I discussed some of the
main themes in current Sino-British trade ,and began to look at some remedies
needed. In particular, I tackled one great area of complacency: the idea that
although Britain's services-focused economic structure was not as strong in the
emerging markets as manufacturing powerhouses such as Germany, we would still
benefit in the "next cycle", as those economies matured and required
services. I pointed out that there are precious few examples of any emerging markets
allowing as much foreign presence in services as they do in products - and that
this hope was most likely a fallac.

Following on from this, and partly in
relation to some of the responses I have had, both to the piece and more
generally, I want to tackle the second great area of complacency which I detect
in our British mentality: the idea that as long as we keep our own house in
order, things will be fine. This school of thought argues in essence that we do
not need such a thing as a "China policy", or an "India policy"
or anything else. We should remain true to who we are (possibly in conjunction
with an exit from Europe), and our patience will be rewarded.

For a start, this way of thinking
demonstrates a dangerous parochialism which prevents Britain from taking on the
challenges of globalisation head-on. It is instructive to note how far we are
from our American cousins for whom "China
is an overarching backdrop to almost everything" being discussed on
Capitol Hill. Naturally. we do not have their geo-political priorities But, ideally, our own discourse should resemble more closely that description than
the sad "black box" which currently exists. We need to talk more at
Westminster about China.

Moreover, this attitude does not recognise
the realities of our current relative position, or future trajectory. At some
point, Britain will have to embrace its position as an underdog rather than a
major player, and we have to understand that how we implement and conduct
government-to-government trade policy is totally different in each
circumstance. The days of corporate imperialism - when Britain could aim to
dictate trade with the emerging markets on its own or even equal terms - are
long gone. Instead, we must be flexible, and aim to shape ourselves to provide
what others need on their terms.

Anatole Pang is a former Conservative council candidate for Twickenham, and is resident in Beijing where he has worked for four years. He is currently an active member of Conservatives Abroad there.

It has been a cliché for some years now, that Britain needs to find a
way to make more of China and its economy if we are going to find our feet in a
changing world. The current trade position compared to our nearest peers is
startling, with exports to China far below Germany and even France, and with
the worst trade deficit amongst all the large European economies.

[1]As yet however, the UK has not demonstrated a particularly coherent
strategy as to how to go about rectifying this – in fact one might argue there
has been no real “China policy” at all. Part of this may be due to the structure of our economy, with its
focus on services; but another entirely preventable limitation is the mentality
which pervades some British business, government and the FCO.

Even for those who are keen on confronting the China dilemma, there
is a complacency. For instance one theory prevalent in some circles is that
Britain, although disadvantaged in this current cycle of Chinese
industrialization, is well poised to make the most of the following phase,
where China’s domestic markets will begin to demand services. According to this
view, Britain’s time will inevitably come, with a little patience, and the
strong position of Germany and others is but temporary.

The problem is this: in the history of post-war development, there
has been no example of any country successfully migrating from lower to
upper-middle income whilst also maintaining an open-mind towards foreign companies.
Typically a developing country will begin to expose its manufacturing base to
competition from abroad, but will continue to protect its services. Singapore
is an example of this, as is Malaysia; in Japan and Korea foreigners barely get
a look in. India is notoriously difficult to enter as a market and vast swathes
of South America area as protectionist now as they ever were.

Anatole was a Conservative council candidate in 2006, and
continues to actively support the cause.He currently works in
political PR and is based in Beijing.

The recent debate which has emerged as to the relative merits and demerits of the 55% rule appears to indicate an early stumbling block for David Cameron. But are David Davis et al right? Having read the various critiques, I feel stronger than ever that many politicians who are objecting in good faith are misreading the electorate on certain key things.

First and foremost is this idea of “wanting more democracy”, which I think is a very typical example of a concept which has its roots in popular sentiment, but which is twisted by those in the Westminster village into something which suits their own agenda. Simply put, I don’t think any member of the public has any desire whatsoever to spend more time at the ballot box under any form. I certainly experienced no enthusiasm for more contact with the electoral process on the doorstep this year. This includes general and local elections of course; but I think also applies to referendums, recalls, primaries or any other form of choice which involves going to cast a piece of paper for one side or another.

The Great British public are cynical, caustic and somewhat lazy. They see elections as little other than a chance for politicians to preen and self-publicise. Of course, once in a while they enjoy the chance to throw out a government and change it for another that might offer something different; but overall, even most of the “in-between” elections are considered totally unnecessary and a waste of time and money – witness 2001, 1987 and so on. Of course I am not arguing for ending the five-year term limits, but what I am saying is that the starting point for considering this issue is that the public regard electioneering as an appalling spectacle, and increasingly with the demise of partisan allegiances, mark down all overt partisanship or tribalism. This, for better or worse, is the world we live in.